Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Season article task force/archive

Lists of seasons
List of Northampton Town F.C. seasons is currently tagged for this task force, but is outside of the current scope, which includes only single-season articles rather than lists of seasons. It seems a simple choice to me:


 * Expand our scope to include lists of seasons or
 * Explain in the scope that lists of seasons are specifically excluded

If there is a consensus on this I will make the change accordingly. I favour the latter as we already have an established format for club season lists, so the focus should be on single season articles. Also, the name of the task force includes the word "article", suggesting that lists be excluded. Cheers. --Jameboy (talk) 14:26, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, if we're going to be pedantic then I should point out that a list is still an article. Anyway, having an established format is a good thing. In practise it means that either option means little. If you're interested in individual seasons, the chances are that you're going to have some interest in the list as well. I just think if there is any possibility whatsoever of drawing more attention to that format, we should "expand our scope" for that reason alone. WFCforLife (talk) 16:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * In a broader, more philosophical sence, I see the purpose of this project as improving articles pertaining to football seasons, regardless of whether they deal with one or multiples seasons. I therefore support expanding the scope to include lists. Sir Sputnik (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree, I don't see the problem with including lists of seasons in our scope. – PeeJay 18:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll go with that... I will start tagging some of these lists. --Jameboy (talk) 14:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement
This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:19, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Britannica, not Pepys
Can we make it part of our guidelines not to have Diary of the Season or List of Events sections such as this one as they are basically proseline. They do however contain useful information that could be re-formatted into prose or tables and I think we should resolve to do so. --Jameboy (talk) 15:03, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've thought about this a lot. For something as high profile as English football, I really do understand how it ends up as bullet points. Imagine trying to keep prose neutral for a current season! Obviously you're totally right though, and once possible we should try to turn them into a proper prose section. WFCforLife (talk) 18:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Southern Football League
Before 1920, the Football League and the Southern Football League ran in parallel; they were competing leagues. As a rule of thumb northern teams were in the former, and southern teams in the latter (with one minor exception). Would there be any objection to including Southern League tables etc within the likes of 1894–95 in English football, up until 1919–20? WFCforLife (talk), Help wikipedia. Make the pledge. 19:05, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't object at all. – PeeJay 20:34, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No objection from me. A welcome addition. Argyle 4 Life (talk) 20:44, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Cool. I'll try to get onto it over the next few weeks. Also, I know this is bordering on controversial, but can we change the link of "Team season articles, such as Arsenal F.C. season 2009–10" on the main page? The tables are comprehensive, but in terms of prose, that's a terrible example of what we do here. My suggestion is to put one of our good articles there instead. I would do it myself, but as a Watford fan I could be accused of a COI in replacing an Arsenal article with a "better" one. WFCforLife (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To the contrary, the proposal is highly uncontroversial. I put Arsenal on the front page because it was the very first team article that came into my mind when creating the task force page. If there is a model article, feel free to change it as soon as possible. The same goes for the other example articles, by the way. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 23:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The proposal's uncontroversial, I was just wary of upsetting an Arsenal fan if they had added it. I've changed it to York City's, that seems like a good structure and was promoted quite recently. Regards, rWFCforLife (talk) 23:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

footballbox collapsible
It has been suggested that this template violates MOS:COLLAPSE. I have already responded with my own thoughts on this, but I would like to encourage any editors watching this page (especially those who edit articles that make use of this template) to join the discussion over here. Thanks! --SkotyWAT|C 23:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Apologies a lot of this argument went over my head but on a side note what is the prefered layout for these boxes? What I am refering to is for the away side, should the goal and card images come before the goal scorers name like the score comes before the teams name.  Also if a player scores but also gets carded should there be sepearte entries for both or should they be combined?  I only ask on the 2nd one as I had them seperate and someone came along and changed them all. bobatron83 (talk) 18:52, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As for the orientation of the graphics for the away team - it doesn't matter if they are on the left-hand or on the right-hand side as long as it is equally applied for all footballboxes in the respective article.
 * As for the cards - first of all, it depends on the type of article if all cards should be mentioned. If it is a team season article, it might be borderline okay to mention all cards. In all other cases, only expulsions (both second yellow and straight red cards) should be listed. Aside from this, scorers and booked players should always be listed separately, with the goals coming first. If a goalscorer is also booked/expelled in the same match, he should not be wikilinked a second time.
 * However, this is only my EUR 0.02; it may very well be possible that different opinions exist. *smilingly looks in certain directions* --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 19:45, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Club season article titles
OK, this issue has been hanging over our heads for a while, so I thought I ought to bring it to the fore. Club season articles are currently titled using the following format: "[Club name] season XXXX–YY". However, it seems that the majority of American sports team season articles use the format: "XXXX–YY [Team name] season". This format already seems to have been introduced for Shelbourne F.C. seasons, and I think maybe it's time to introduce it across the board for association football season articles. What say you, gentlemen? – PeeJay 11:33, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with this move. Doesn't the rationale that applied to moving the years to the fore on league season articles – found here – also apply in this situation? In North America, the proposed format has already been applied to all leagues. For example, see the following 2009 articles: college football, ice hockey, baseball, MLS, and basketball. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suppose it would make them consistent with the league/competition articles etc. but after seeing those Shelbourne ones, it just doesn't seem right. Either way, I don't envy the editors who will end up moving hundreds, maybe thousands of pages. -- Big  Dom  13:43, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not opposed per se, but I think "Manchester United 2009-10 season" and "Manchester United season 2009-10" both read better than "2009-10 Manchester United season". If there's consensus I'll go with the flow, but I don't see the benefit. WFCforLife (talk) 13:23, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's more for consistency than anything. And for the record, I actually think that "2009-10 Manchester United F.C. season" reads better than either "Manchester United F.C. 2009-10 season" or "Manchester United F.C. season 2009-10". I've renamed all of the articles in Category:Manchester United F.C. seasons if anyone wants to see what the changes would look like on a large scale. – PeeJay 15:15, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Definitely put the year in the front. It reads better and makes more grammatical sense. Digirami (talk) 06:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Archving
How do we place a bot in this page to automatically archive this talkpage? It's getting pretty long as it is and only bound to get longer without a bot. Digirami (talk) 07:18, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Redirects from hyphenated names
Hello. When the Football League season articles were moved from the The Football League 1892–93 format to the years-first 1892–93 Football League format, no redirects were created at the hyphenated version e.g. 1892-93 Football League, as required by MOS:ENDASH, section En dashes in page names, so that people can type the name easily. There may be other competitions with the same problem, this happens to be the one I came across. Do you have plans for a bot to do this, or should some poor devil start going round wearing out their hyphen key? cheers, Struway2 (talk) 08:59, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll put in a request for a bot to do it, but the process at WP:BOTREQ is very slow so I don't know quite how long it will take for a bot to get around to it. – PeeJay 09:08, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Struway2 (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Did You Know
I'm not sure if we are recording Did You Know entries separately from the main project, but I just thought I'd mention that I have successfully taken one season article to DYK (1885–86 West Bromwich Albion F.C. season) and have nominated another (1882–83 West Bromwich Albion F.C. season). There's definitely a big scope for many more DYKs, given the potentially very large number of club season articles that have yet to be created. --Jameboy (talk) 22:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There definitely is a large scope for DYKs related to this sub-project so I can't see any harm in starting something similar to what we have at WP:WPF/DYK. I'd help to keep it updated, etc. if you were to create it. -- Big  Dom  17:43, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Peer review
I'm currently working to get Burnley F.C. season 1920–21 (which recently became the first historical season article GA) to become the first season article to attain Featured Article status if possible and accordingly I have initiated a Peer Review that can be found here. I would greatly appreciate it if interested editors had a quick look at the article and left a couple of pointers and improvements to help me on my drive. Cheers, Big  Dom  23:03, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Qualification colors
Why is there a difference in domestic leagues and cup tournaments when it comes to color-code qualification. For example, in domestic leagues, the colors are left on highlighting the qualification throughout the season. In cup tournaments, the colors are left out until the qualification has been mathematically assured; instead a green or blue bar is shown to indicate the qualifying spots. Any reason? --MicroX (talk) 04:16, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I wondered the same thing and I'm glad MicroX brought it up. I think it'll be easier to apply colors in league season articles once the team has mathematically are qualified/relegated. It's a lot easier and we won't have to deal with an additional parameters ("|qualified="). Using that parameter and colors too to show qualification is a bit overkill in my eyes. Digirami (talk) 07:01, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Just a reminder that colouring should be used in addition to other forms of labelling, not instead of it. As I wrote in a recent related discussion here
 * "It's generally better to use superscripts than colours for accessibility. Users of monochrome browsers, text-only browsers, screen readers, low-contrast display and the colour-blind - all these can all use superscript characters where the colour information may be lost...If you can find a suitable colour scheme to convey the information use that as well, but it's best not to encode information using colour alone."

Knepflerle (talk) 11:57, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * That may be fine if the a season is one going, but how about a past season? Just the fact that the team's name is on the same row as the competition(s) they qualified to should be enough... no need to use those extra parameters. Digirami (talk) 12:26, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Think we're talking at cross-purposes here! I agree with you - if there is text next to the club with the name of the competition that's absolutely fine.  All I was saying is the template shouldn't be altered so that colour without text is used; the competition name should always be written as well. Knepflerle (talk) 13:15, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Without taking the "'in addition' to other forms of labelling, not 'instead,'" the topic has risen from when to apply the colors in in a league table: from the start, or when a team has actually secured a qualification. MicroX simply pointed out that in article such 2010 Copa Libertadores, color is aded to show that a team advanced from the second (group) stage to the round of 16 is added when they secured such qualification, but in a league table a team has a color added if they are simply in a favorable position and not because they have secured qualification. So, like he said, why the two methods? Digirami (talk) 19:41, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Club season article structure
Ok, we collaborated to come up with a structure for league season articles through consensus with great success. Now, I think it is time to come up with a consensual agreement as to the structure and organization of the club season articles. You'll be hard pressed to find two club season articles with the same structure from two different clubs. Forget about the tables look for the time being, we should start with something relatively simple, such as where the squad list goes or the results or the squad statistics.

So, let's start hearing suggestions. Digirami (talk) 08:33, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that the article should be split into sections for each competition the club enters. I also think that pre-season and friendly fixtures should be included, although I know there is some opposition to this. Squad statistics should come as low down the page as possible, and should be limited to appearances, goals and cards. Extraneous data like birth dates, former clubs, transfer window signed in and EU status, as well as synthesised info such as "most common starting line-up" should be ignored completely. – PeeJay 08:41, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree with most of what PJ said, but I have one disagreement with the things listed. I believe that transfer data is relevant information, though it should go along with the statistics at the end of the article. The coming and going of players is a big part of what happens at a club during a season. I am strongly in agreement that "most common starting line-up" should be avoided because in my experience those types of tables/lists are completely WP:OR. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:21, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * "I am strongly in agreement that "most common starting line-up" should be avoided because in my experience those types of tables/lists are completely WP:OR." - I am strongly in agreement with your strong agreement. Knepflerle (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll admit in advance that my suggestions for the structure have been influenced by the team season articles in some American sports. I think they've been doing this a bit longer than we have. With that being said, I agree with some of the suggestions for the most part, too. I too think the competitions need to be broken up individually and relevant playing statistics (goals, caps, cards) go at the end of the article. I think any pertinent club information--which includes (among other possible things) the coaching staff, the roster and transfers--should come before the competitions sections. Digirami (talk) 12:23, 23 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Whatever makes the articles consistent, easy to read and understand, and is not WP:NOT, I support. And of course if there is appropriate sources. I also wanted to ask if this champion box is really needed in season articles?


 * Is it really necessary? --MicroX (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This is about club season articles, not competition season articles, but I do agree with you that those boxes are completely pointless. And if they're being used on club season articles, then that's even worse. – PeeJay 00:39, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I've felt the same way about those boxes for a long time now, and would be quite happy to see them go. Knepflerle (talk) 11:59, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure how common these are, but lists of "start formations" such as 2009–10 Arsenal F.C. season have the same problems as lists of "most common starting line-up", but with even more subjectivity. Knepflerle (talk) 12:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Back on topic, are we in some sort of agreement that the basic strcuture of club season articles should be as follow (from top to bottom):
 * 1) Lead section
 * 2) Any basic club information (kits, coaching staff, stadium changes, etc)
 * 3) Squad information (limited to squad lists and transfers)
 * 4) Competitions (going in order: league, national cup, international competitions)
 * 5) Squad statistics (limited to apps, goals, and cards)

Nevermind how the information should be displayed in (i.e. tables vs. lists or whatever design), but does any one want to add anything? Digirami (talk) 06:24, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure including the coaching staff is necessary. Sounds a bit trivial. And where would we draw the line? In the case of Man Utd, I could see about 10 staff being listed, but I'm sure some people would think my list is too inclusive, while others would say I've not included enough. It just seems like a step too far to me.
 * Also, wouldn't it be possible to merge the squad list and the squad statistics? The squad stats would involve listing the squad anyway, so I've always thought that the stats tables we use on the Man Utd season articles is pretty good. – PeeJay 07:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, new club season page editor here. I made a couple before I found this task force and was looking for some guidance. It looks like everything is still being hashed out. I took elements from MLS and Premier League season pages and combined them to make Portland Timbers season pages for 2009 and 2010. They are severely lacking in prose but it looks like I chose close to a consensus layout (categorized by competition, stats at the end). I, too, think having the squad table along with statistics tables are redundant, but transfers seem important. I don't have a section 2 from above (besides what's in the infobox) and I removed the squad list in favor of the stat tables (for 2010). I would like to add a transfer section but where should that go? Transfers seem appropriate for a season page as that info is changed and lost on a club page. DemonJuice (talk) 19:22, 10 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I can see how it can be redundant, but I still feel it might be necessary. In South America (at least), you're only allowed to use 25 players from your squad in South American competition, and they have to be numbered 1-25. Because of that, listing what players were used (selected) in certain competitions is good because some players will have jersey numbers that are different their regular/domestic jersey. And a basic squad list will also be useful to note certain particularities of a squad, like who are the designated underage players (pertinent to some leagues), who is the captain, etc. These kind of stuff would not make a squad/stats table as clean as it should be. And a squad/stats table assumes that there is a complete stats table. I have seen team season articles where the only thing in the stats section is a goal scoring table that features only those players that have scored.
 * You raise a good point about the coaching staff. Where does it end? We could always set a limit. It's definitely worth mentioning who the head coach and his assistants are in a season, but positions like what Real Madrid has listed in their season article is excessive (unless there is a change in presidency during the season, but just that). I'm sure we can draw the limit somewhere. Digirami (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Discussion: Save of the week, Goal of the week
Editors contributing to this task force may be interested in the discussion here as to whether to include "goal of the week" and "save of the week" tables in season articles. Knepflerle (talk) 12:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Fb templates on South American seasons
Since fb templates were created, they slowly made there way onto the CONMEBOL seasons, but each one uses at least 3 league tables and 2 result tables due to their multi-staged formats. I look at the seasons and the only thing that comes to mind is: What a mess! I'm thinking we need to rethink how we organize these CONMEBOL seasons, how we use these tables or what tables to use. The way the fb tables are made make them look like they were intended to be used only once per season article, not several as we are doing now in almost all CONMEBOL first divisions. Any ideas? BTW, I'm starting to think fb templates weren't the best idea for football season articles. --MicroX (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a problem with the templates, per say. It's the nature of the leagues. Standings are standings. There isn't much you can do there, besides modifying how the qualification/advancement is displayed. As for the results, no good alternative comes to mind. A list of fixtures (like how the Colombia articles used to be) looks bad and is quite excessively extensive. In addition, its one thing to say its bad without thinking of a way to improve it. The way we have the article organized now is because there was no clear organization across the board (highlight by how the Argentine articles used to be) and it was decided by the project to have one article per season. Digirami (talk) 07:15, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

I have a problem with one of the Fb templates. As you can see here, a number 10 appears outside of the Fb rs template. It looks like that is suppose to be the Goal Difference value. I checked another season article, like this one, and it doesn't seem to have that problem. Help. --MicroX (talk) 23:01, 6 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That problem showed up in Liga de Quito's season article. That template uses another template, which was modified recently quite adversely. I should have fixed the problem now. Digirami (talk) 23:18, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

List of current fb templates
Below is a list of the unique fb template branches used in season articles of all kinds, mostly for club seasons, together with their purposes. I was quite shocked about the mass of unnecessary templates. Your job, in case you are willing to accept it, is a) to identify the most commonly used templates and b) to detect candidates for merger or deletion.

An asterisk (*) implies that there are several numbered versions within the respective branch.
 * a      : Attendance table
 * cl*    : league table
 * cm*    : list of competitive matches
 * cs     : list of coaching staff
 * disc   : list of disciplinary record
 * event  : events such as 2009–10 Arsenal F.C. season
 * finals : unknown usage, not in use in any articles
 * fm     : list of friendly matches
 * in*    : list of players transferred to club
 * kit    : list of football kits similar to F.C. Copenhagen
 * map    : redundant to Template:Location map
 * match* : list of matches, two different versions with different purposes exist
 * mfs*   : "most frequent squad"
 * notice : notice for talk pages indicating the use of fb templates
 * oi     : lists of "official information", either to be read literally or as information on members of the board of a club
 * out*   : list of players transferred from club
 * overall*: summary on results in all competitions for a club, for example Crewe Alexandra F.C. season 2008–09
 * position: to be used together with the Fb mfs series, subtemplate for the field position of a player
 * ps     : player stats
 * r*     : results tables
 * rbr    : round-by-round tables, in two versions (league-wise or club-wise)
 * report* : subtemplate, used within the cm series for match reports similar to Template:Footballbox
 * rs     : results summary similar as in Plymouth Argyle F.C. season 2001–02, has also a MLS variant
 * sf     : list of starting formations during a season, see West Ham United F.C. season 2007–08 for an example
 * si*    : squad information, see Charlton Athletic F.C. season 2007–08 for an example
 * ss*    : squad stats, see S.L. Benfica season 2007–08for an example


 * Off the top, CL, R, Overall, RBR, and RS are the probably the ones most used. Other templates on that list, like the match and report ones, are seem to be disregarded in favor other better templates or custom-made tables (like ). Most of the other are pretty useless and easily go against WP:NOTSTATS. I wouldn't mind purging them and/or revamping some of these templates. Digirami (talk) 01:15, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I think Digirami's nailed this one on the head. We have way too many "convenience" templates that are anything but. I think part of the problem, however, is that so many articles are poorly written and rely on stats to convey everything about the season. We need to find a way to encourage editors to use prose to convey a lot of that information. Also, there was a brief discussion at Template talk:Footballbox collapsible about merging the match boxes & footballboxes into one template, which I'd be in favor of doing. I'd even be willing to test my mettle by giving it a go. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 11:45, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, go ahead. :-) In the meantime (and on a lesser scale of size), I would try to merge Template:Fb cl header, Template:Fb cl-non header and Template:Fb cl2 header into one template, if possible, for a start. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 12:10, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I've merged the last two (through redirect). But I won't merge the cl header and cl-non header. One has the Qualification/Relegation column and the other doesn't, so it serves a different purpose... Unless there is a way you can make that column optional. Digirami (talk) 13:08, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, if we are going to purge some of these template, perhaps we should provide a suitable alternative? I, and I'm sure other, have designed tables in use now that are simpler and to the point when compared to the templates in that list. I'm sure we can agree on the best one to keep.
 * On a similar note, there has to be a better way to handle/correct the usage of these template. It seems that if one template was not quite doing the job, another template was made instead of correcting the original. The most obvious example of this is Template:Fb cl qr and Template:Fb cl2 qr. To this day, I do not know why cl2 qr was created. What made it worse was that cl2 qr needed a whole new set of round templates to make it work, even though hundreds were already made and in use. And to prove that there was no need to create cl2 qr, I edited the code of cl qr (the original) to match cl2 qr... and it works more than wonderfully. Digirami (talk) 13:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * As seen on 2010 Deildabikar, I have successfully merged the two templates. Since only 100 articles or so implement the non header version, merging/deleting said template should not be that hard to accomplish. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just looking at that list of templates makes me want to quit this project! I'm all for standardisation of tables, but this is fucking ridiculous (I apologise for my use of language there, but for once I felt it was fucking warranted). – PeeJay 14:13, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's alright, we all have the right to snap once a year.^^; By the way, this is only the list of templates contained in Category:Fb templates. I'm pretty sure that there are a few hidden gems out there as well - with lots of colors on them. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 14:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's start by listing template we can do away with. I see these are one to purge first: mfs, report, oi, sf, a, events, finals, map. They either go against NOTSTATS, can be easily dealt with via a normal list, or are redundant. Digirami (talk) 20:01, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You aren't kidding (warning: likely to cause furious rage). The problems seem to stem from (templatespace contribs) and especially  (templatespace contribs). Fortunately, this shouldn't be too much work to clear up. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 08:10, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Addressing an issue similar to Digirami's, what's the idea behind,  , and  ? I've been using cm3 since 2007 because I copied it off Real Madrid's seasons at the time but I've been asking myself, "why is there up to a 3rd version in the first place?" BTW, I'm not very good at editing, reading, or understanding the code of these fb templates. The only ones I've been able to edit or create are the simpler ones like fb team, grounds, rounds; basically most of the ones that will appear on the league season articles --MicroX (talk) 09:18, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Try pinging, who wrote them; he's still active from the look of his contribs list. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:37, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * In a related question, does anybody know if a template like Template:A-league Ladder header 0 which is not linked to or transcluded in any articles whatsoever can be speedied per CSD#T3 or not? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:24, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I would say that template qualifies for deletion under CSD#T3. – PeeJay 16:51, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Another class of problematic templates are ones such as Template:Fb undisclosed (Template:Fb undisclosed), Template:Fb Captain (Template:Fb Captain) and Template:Fb EU passport which are often used as a substitute for text in tables. They have numerous disadvantages over simple text - they aren't always obvious in meaning, they don't display at all on text-only browsers, they aren't read by screen-readers, they can't be automatically translated, they slow loading times when used en masse and they make editing information more complicated for newer editors. The small and subjective aesthetic gain these have over ?, (capt.) and EU is not worth losing the flexibility and usability we would gain from using text. Knepflerle (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I had a similar argument with ClaudioMB over that issue, especially in regard to undisclosed (take a look here). I lost that argument because I had given up on it. There seemed to be no reasoning with him. Digirami (talk) 19:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It should have been taken to a wider audience. We've gotten really good at cracking down on ICONDECORATION of late, and that's evidently not an exception to the wider rule. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 06:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I've taken Template:Fb event to TfD if anyone wants to comment on that one in particular. --Jameboy (talk) 21:06, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have a comment on the fb round templates (BTW, I don't know if I mentioned this in the past). What if we were to migrate all fb round2 templates to fb round or simply stop using fb round2 templates? For example, this is an fb round template and this is an fb round2 in use. They carry out the same function. I'm wondering what was the point of making two because it has created two ways of doing the same thing. --MicroX (talk) 01:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Fb round2 templates were created to fit into Template:Fb cl2 qr, which was created for a reason complately unknown to me since "Fb cl qr" is working just fine and does exactly the same thing. Digirami (talk) 05:12, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * So would Template:Fb cl2 qr qualify for deletion when Template:Fb cl qr already satisfies the function of displaying qualification and relegation? From what I can see, the 2nd version is just a duplicate. --MicroX (talk) 05:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * 500+ articles use "Fb cl2 qr". So an outright deletion would not be good. If we delete cl2, it would need to be replaced first (obviously). I would also like to know why ClaudioMB created "Fb cl2 qr" when "Fb cl qr" could have been edited for whatever reason "cl2" was created. Digirami (talk) 07:06, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is also used by the overall2 template. The difference between is that the first version won't display Winner or Champion but instead a w --MicroX (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Format of season article
Hi, I just like to confirm the format of season article title. Note that for S.League seasons articles, it come in 2 formats, 2009 S. League and S.League 2008. I assume 2009 S. League is the correct format but I like verification before moving articles (although I will like seasoned writers to move it instead of myself in case I messed the move). I will help to update S.League seasons article (and add them to this wiki project)as much as I can as information on S.League especially early season is very little. Thanks Xaiver0510 (talk) 01:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Per consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football/Archive 33, the current article format for all season articles is  , so the 2009 version has the correct format to which all other articles should be moved. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 08:30, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Will move them when I am free! Xaiver0510 (talk) 15:10, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Suggested mass move of Turkish league articles
It seems that all the article names (and league names in general) about individual Turkish top-flight seasons (and the league itself) have been translated. My issue is that no other league names have been translated in such a manner (for example, La Liga isn't called The League). I propose moving all the individual top-flight seasons from 1959 to 1962-63 (Turkish National League 1959, Turkish First Football League 1959–60, Turkish First Football League 1960–61, Turkish First Football League 1961–62, and Turkish First Football League 1962–63) to XXXX-XX Milli Lig (the top-flight was known as the Milli Lig from 1959 until the end of the 1962-63 season. The named was changed to the 1.Lig after the creation of the 2.Lig. See http://www.angelfire.com/nj/sivritepe/6364/tl.html for more information).

That would mean all individual season from 1963-64 to 2000-01 will be named the 1.Lig. All seasons from 2001-02 will not be moved, as the league is currently named the Süper Lig. I will move them all myself. I will also cleanup all the articles, with the proper league names, but I wanted to run this by WP:FOOTBALL before making any drastic changes. Thank you. Invisibletr (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

2010-11 fixtures
Just a quick heads up that as fixtures are copyright, we shouldn't list them out in league or club season articles until the games have been played. The Football League are particularly well known for protecting their copyright, as they are perfectly entitled to. The Premier League aren't far behind, and most other professional leagues reserve the rights to their fixtures (albeit not all of them enforce it to the same extent as in England). Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Do you mean in club season articles? --MicroX (talk) 02:23, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Club season articles are the main problem, but the same is also true for league season articles. WFCforLife (talk) 05:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * For league season articles, how do we not infringe copyright? --MicroX (talk) 05:06, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The copyright is on fixtures that have not happened yet. Completed matches are no longer protected by copyright, but it would be an infringement of copyright to, for example, put the dates of all forthcoming matches into a table such as this one. Big  Dom  06:59, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * That's it in a nutshell. 2010–11 Premier League as a whole is a good example of what can be done without infringing copyright whilst still being informative. It's also fine to say things such as "reigning champions Templetonian F.C. start their campaign against newly promoted Temple Town" or that "the season will begin with a match between Foo United and FooFoo City at The FuFu on 13 Smarch 3010"; these basic facts constitute fair use. WFCforLife (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Week-by-Week results
After a discussion between me, Qampunen and Soccer-holic, it was suggested that I should put my proposal up for discussion. The section that is up for discussion is about showing week-by-week results of every team. The reason, given by Qampunen, to delete it the first time was as follows: "(This section has been decided to be removed...sorry)". The only explanation I could find was on his talk-page, saying that it was only useful for US-American competitions, due to the fact that they have location-based schedules. I responded by saying that this statistic gives a very good view of winning/losing streaks. The second time it was deleted, there were no new arguments given. The only other argument I have been able to find so far was that "even the English Premier League doesn't have it". By starting this discussion I hope that either someone can give me a good reason to not include this section, or that we can find some sort of solution. Mltinus (talk) 11:50, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, I'm the man who wrote this big table. I saw it on MLS and I thought that this table shows the continuity of the league and winning/losing streake. And I put it on the La Liga also and I'd thought that if this table appear in MLS, nothing would be wrong if it can appear in La Liga. I really don't understand what I did wrong, I just wrote this table for a long time and it is annoying me when I see that all my work is not needed. So why did I take too many hours to do it? and just know that I made (almost) all the Copa del Rey seasons articles, so I have an experience with football articles. --OrGW (talk) 13:49, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * OrGW, your work is appreciated, but there are quite a few counterarguments which would speak against this addition:


 * The table, if added, would duplicate already existing information (the results table). As a consequence, we are talking about a replacement, not an addition. The existing results table presents the information in a sufficient way, as there is no need to know when a particular club has played against another club, at least if it is not important for the course of the competition. It has also the advantage of a much clearer layout where any result can directly be looked up without the knowledge of the particular matchday/round the match has been played in.
 * Any important streaks, may they be winning or losing streaks and especially if they have been important for the course of the championship, should be mentioned in prose, not by adding another table. The season articles generally lack prose, so a section where the relevant season events are described would be the perfect fit for such information. This method is also highly encouraged by this task force.
 * The table in question might be useful for the competition where it originates from (e.g. 2010 Major League Soccer season), but this is owed to the fact that the MLS usually has no strict "matchdays" for its season. As a consequence, Philadelphia Union may have played a different number of matches than the Los Angeles Galaxy on a given date. The fact that the US schedules are usually based on geographical aspects as well also contributes to this. The table format in question might be useful in this asynchronous scheduling environment, but does not make sense at all for the rest of the world where usually all teams are involved in a given matchday/round.
 * So, in a nutshell, the results-by-week table should not be added to any league season articles other than the MLS, especially not as a replacement for the existing results table. Any streaks which proved important for the course of a season should be mentioned in prose.
 * Besides, it is a little... unfortunate to choose the MLS as an example, as they had to adopt the one or another element from the other major sports leagues, which includes scheduling formats and the Conference/Division schemes. (Hope the last one didn't sound too harsh, as it clearly was not intended to do so) --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 14:24, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * So, there is an article which this table can be there?or maybe this table can be hided in La Liga.
 * I don't want my work will disappear and go to trash...
 * I wanted to make this table to 2010-11 too, but it seems it won't be.
 * maybe in 2010 spanish football article this table can be as La Liga schedule? --OrGW (talk) 14:35, 9 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the delay. I have thought quite a bit about where to put the table, but could not imagine a proper mainspace location. If you are still desperate to keep it though, I would suggest to put it onto your user page. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:55, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I made a 2009-10 in Spanish Football page, and I put it there. I think it's OK to put it there as calendar of the matches. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OrGW (talk • contribs) 06:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I disagree with this. "[season] in [nation] football" articles are supposed to be a summary of the season across the entire spectrum of football played in the country; details like week-by-week fixtures are not appropriate. – PeeJay 15:09, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Soccer-holic, thank you for the clarification. I myself am a huge fan of statistics and trying to find interesting patterns in them, but I can understand that prose is more suitable. MLtinus  [TALK] 13:17, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Notability - July 2010
Has notability shifted since this was last discussed at all or are season articles for teams below the Conference National generally deemed not noteworthy? I've just come across a 2010–11 season article for Sutton United. Thanks, --Jimbo[online] 00:22, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you're right, that article is not a notable subject. – PeeJay 01:18, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it's below the notability threshold. Big  Dom  09:23, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Please see the following precedents which could suggest the article ought to stay:


 * 2001–02 Newport County A.F.C. season


 * 2005–06 Gateshead F.C. season

There are a few more too. Thanks. --Half Price (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Take a look at WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS. Big  Dom  17:25, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Damn, haven't heard of that one. Well, furthermore, what makes the Conference National the border of notability? --Half Price (talk) 17:42, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, it is the lowest level played on a nationwide basis. Equivalents in other countries would be Segunda División (Spain), Serie B (Italy), 3rd Liga (Germany) or Championnat National (France). An additional criterion might be that the league of the club in question should be semi-professional at least. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 17:54, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Very well, I'll remove it and keep it on my user page. Out of interest, what if Sutton were to get into the third round of the FA Cup, say, and beat a Prem side or at least give them a run for their money? Would the article then be notable? Cheers. --Half Price (talk) 18:00, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Err, I can't remove the article. Can an admin please? Thanks. --Half Price (talk) 18:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
 * While we're on the subject, I don't buy the argument for Conference seasons. WP:ATHLETE suggests that those players are non-notable, and according to this project, a breach of ATHLETE is a crime punishable by hanging.* So, unless there is significant coverage under the GNG (such as Stevenage or Yeovil's promotion seasons, or whatever season it is that Wimbledon had that amazing non-league FA Cup run), what makes a Conference club's season notable? That strikes me as inconsistent. WFC (talk) 18:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Can someone please delete the page? There's no point going through AfD. --Half Price (talk) 12:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Tag it with db-g7 (author requests deletion) and an administrator will delete it for you. Big  Dom  12:45, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Aha, thank you. --Half Price (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

How to denote divisions
I recently got the sortable List of Watford F.C. seasons promoted to a featured list. I was reluctant to publicly ask during the FLC, but there are a couple of questions that have come out of it that I think are worth raising. The most obvious (looking at that list) is how we denote divisions in a sortable tables. Any ideas on how to do it in a sortable table without the division column looking as messy as it does now?

The other thing I wanted to ask was whether there would be any interest in a template (or set of templates). I've given an example of how I think the dream input would look (with an example of the output). It would take a while to pull off, but if people think it's the way to go I'd be happy to slowly work on one. Regards, --WFC-- 07:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, there wasn't any feedback, so between reverting racists I played around with this idea. Decided against a full-on template for each line, but instead I came up with Football season start, Football season span and (not strictly a football template) Sort dash. Using these templates alone I managed to reduce the size of List of Watford F.C. seasons by around 20%. --WFC-- 05:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there a way this design can work with leagues that use stages and/or the Apertura/Clausura format? Digirami (talk) 03:59, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Good work WFC, ddn't notice this earlier but I'm glad I did now. I'll be using your format in the future, should make life easier. Cheers. '' Timbouctou 12:01, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize the article made it to FL, but I'd just like to say that it looks great. I love the format and how you were able to make the sort functions work well. My only question is one that doesn't apply to Watford but would to many other clubs: in the Other Competition field, what should be done when a club participates in multiple competitions, such as the Champions & Europa Leagues? The sort would only work for the first listed competition, right? To respond to your question, I believe that you could cause it to sort by pyramid tier (which is currently listed in parentheses) with hidden numbers, which are explained pretty well in the Nts /doc page. Is that helpful or what you were interested in learning? JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Digirami: The best way I can think of is to use the season column to do it. For countries where the Apertura is the first tournament of a year, you could do something along the lines of:

Argentina does the opposite, and for that I'd recommend:

(I only used a simple wikitable to make this response less confusing)

If the template is going to be used for other countries, we should make the links in the header relevant for countries other than England. I know that in one of the Fb player statistics templates, every single country's equivalent of the FA Cup and League Cup are contained in switch statements. As far as the user is concerned, all they have to do is type in their team's country, and the correct tournaments link by default. If anyone can find which template that is, I can work that feature into this template, so that for instance typing  (Scotland) would produce:

--WFC-- 03:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

JohnnyPolo24: Correct, you would only be able to sort by the first competition (it does sort of apply to Watford, with the BCCL and United League). If there's demand for it I'll do some more work on the template to make it more universal. For instance I could add an optional third column along the lines of the Charity Shield column in List of Manchester United F.C. seasons. I could also look at making the League Cup column optional or renameable. For instance, Stevenage F.C. would probably want the second column to be for the FA Trophy. If there were to be a third column before "other", it should probably be reserved for the paint pot, rather than the League Cup. --WFC-- 03:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Club season articles
Hi, I have noticed that User:Laligabarce has recently been creating numerous stub articles for club seasons e.g. Charlton 2002-03, Man City 1995-96. This is great but I feel we need some more input to develop these pages. We can create some great articles from these stubs. Anyone willing to help, please respond here. Thanks. 03 md  13:24, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

2002–03 Azadegan League
Hello, my friends: A group of us are working on clearing the backlog at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Articles_lacking_sources_from_October_2006. The article in the above header has been without sources for the past four years and might be removed if none are added. I wonder if you can help do so. Sincerely, and all the best to you, GeorgeLouis (talk) 21:16, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Game-by-game results in league season articles
I recently stumbled upon a few league articles (here and here) where the results boxes comprised of complete fixture lists. Opinions? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 16:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that a results grid suffices. As we all know, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information or an excessive list of statistics. — Half  Price  16:30, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Fb cl table and previous seasons
I have seen that league tables for seasons played before Wikipedia existed have gotten the fb cl table make-over since their use was adopted a few years ago. Are you in favor or against this? The Premier League is one that I notice is being left alone but the German Bundesliga is the opposite. --MicroX (talk) 08:06, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Update: Fb r2 header has been moved to Fb r header
I thought I'd let you know that the template header for results boxes has been moved to Fb r header. The old Fb r header, ehich was not used any more anyway, got finally deleted a couple of days ago in order to make room. Now, there are only two things left to do: Does anybody know a good method for having the entire category deleted without the need to tag each of the 370+ templates for (speedy?) deletion manually? --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:12, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Move every instance of Fb r2 header to Fb r header – this will likely be done by a bot, unless somebody feels chosen to fix the currently 850+ pages using fb r2 header by hand
 * 2) Delete Category:Fb team abbreviation and its contents as these are not needed/used any more.

Club season article MOS, take 2
Ok, I have opened up this thread to discuss establish some sort of skeleton structure for club season articles. It's a first step toward I hope to be a quality MOS for those type of articles so we can avoid the mess seen in the 2010–11 F.C. Internazionale Milano season article. I think one thing we need to establish first is that the majority of the articles will be primarily, if not all, statistics and tables of some kind. While we would like to avoid it with the inclusion of prose, let first work on the assumption that all are just stats because prose can always be fitted in at a later time where appropriate. I'll start it off by "nominating" (for lack of a better word) the structure I have used in the 2010 LDU Quito season. It's rather simple.


 * The first section includes overall club related item, mainly a personnel list and kits, but if the club changes stadium or ownership, it would go in there too. This section would go first because it's umbrella type information that should be established from the onset.
 * The second section is squad information. This includes, but is not limited to, a squad list of some kind and the list of transfers. Like the previous section, the squad roster should be established early, which is why it is second.
 * Third section is all related competitive results. Generally, I list the pre-season first since it happened first chronologically, followed by all league results. Continental results follow in a what ever order seems first (in terms of importance or chronologically). It follows in the overall structure since this is the bulk of the information and can't be pushed down any further.
 * The last section is statistics of any kind that doesn't violate any established Wikipedia guidelines. Players statistics through the season comes to mind in some sort of organized table. This is last because, well, it is what is left to add.

I hope this gets the ball rolling. Digirami (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Glad that this has been raised again. Those basic principles seem sound, although I don't see the point in a squad list as well as a later stats section. In my opinion all the information that needs to be communicated can be communicated in one table, such as the one in 2009–10 Watford F.C. season's statistics section. Bearing in mind WP:NOTSTATS, I think that article as a whole is a decent example of what can be done in a modern season article. While there are largely prose sections towards the end, they cover areas that other season articles might cover exclusively in tables, such as finances, reserves, transfers and attendances.


 * But obviously we have to bear in mind that what works for a 2011 season article probably won't for a season 30 or 40 years ago. I'd pick out 1920–21 Burnley F.C. season and the Port Vale ones (take your pick) as good examples of the sort of structures that can be employed in informative season articles from yesteryear. —WFC— 21:29, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree that a guideline for writing individual season articles is much needed, and would point to the same examples as WFC. It would obviously be unreasonable to expect every season article to contain as much prose as there is in the Burnley article above, not everyone has the time or inclination to do that (I know I haven't really since that one), but as long as there is a MOS of some kind to show what should be included and omitted, the kinds of statistics tables that are acceptable, etc., that would be a good place to start. A mass of statistics is overbearing, unhelpful and unsightly, and is not the sort of thing that should be in an encyclopaedia. BigDom   talk  22:11, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I like the idea of having some guidance for club season articles, but would stress that it should not become too prescriptive. There are a variety of different ways in which to get information across, and we should not be seeking to restrict different approaches. I would be inclined to say that the MOS should suggest the kind of sections that should be included, rather than stipulating the order they should go in, although I realise certain sections should naturally follow in order anyway. It would be useful for the MOS to include links to good examples of season articles, but I think there should be around 3 or 4 different versions to allow people to take a view about what works best for them.

I clicked on the Watford and Burnley links above. The Burnley one is very good for context and is text-heavy (and the author points out that this is quite time-consuming), but I agree that some text should be setting the scene for each article. One minor criticism if we are using this as (one of) the good practice examples is the amount of references that require a subscription, but I guess it is this that has allowed the amount of text in the article. The Watford article seems very good; my minor criticsm of this is the way that the cups have been separated from the league matches. I find it useful to see the progression through the season, and I would like to think that at least some of the examples chosen could show a list of consecutive games in all competitions. Hope this is useful. Eldumpo (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll just throw in the Bradford City seasons for 1903–04 and 2007–08 which are good articles and follow a structure along with other similar Bradford City season articles. Brad78 (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Out of all the examples I've seen, I gotta say that I like the Watford article is high on the ones I like, although still I would put a squad list/information closer to the beginning before competitive results/details. It's something I've picked up from some American sports teams in my hometown and it seems to make sense. I suppose the rational is to know who is part of the (current) squad that will be/are playing the matches you are about to read about. Players statistics would go after the results everything because it's secondary to the results. Digirami (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I forgot about this discussion, and I'm not surprised to see that it hasn't got too far tbh. Thanks for the nod btw WFC. Anyway, it seems to me as though here are two main styles employed to equally effective results:

1. Background/pre-season – League (both text and match list) – FA Cup etc – Player stats 2. Overview (text on season as a whole) – Results list – Player stats

I suppose we don't have to agree on one particular set-up, but I think we can all agree that Inter Milan style statistics are not desirable. Text, match results, and some player stats seem to be key. Separate sections for background, league table/s and transfers seem desirable as well. I don't know if thats enough to write a whole Manual on but it is a start and something I think that is agreed upon for Template Town's 3022-33 season.--EchetusXe 22:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I forgot about this too. Out of the two options you presented, I think we can effectively consolidate that into a decent guideline (overview → squad list + transers → results [divided by competitions + text] → player stats → misc.). I also think we need to establish what stats are acceptable. Digirami (talk) 20:01, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Season template or league template
2010–11 Premier League and 2009–10 Premier League have the Template:Premier League at the end of the article. However, some season articles like 2008–09 Premier League and 2007–08 Premier League has the Template:Premier League seasons at the end instead. So which one should it be? --MicroX (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The Premier League seasons template seems redundant to me since all the links are included on the main template. I can't work out why either template contains a link to the 1991–92 Football League season, since it was (obviously) not a Premier League campaign. Big  Dom  19:49, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Season (sports)
Hi, I did adeed there the top mexican, argentinian and brazilian nationals leagues list to that table, maybe somebody can add another one base on IFFS: Strongest National League in the World, also my english suck, and I hope this talk page of this wikiproject is the right place to say that, sorry if I broke some rule.--Feroang (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Also I think "we" can do a "only football version", a article like "Assoc.. football season(s)" with a long and fast to read table that show how tournament go every years by months, and a "nationals team 4 year season", with National Continental Cup, Qualifications to WC (men, womens, U-20), Olympics, Confederation Cup and and WC (men women, u- ); the 4-year-cycle is near clear so somebody can do a easy reable table, or try--Feroang (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Proposal: Inclusion of written season summaries into league season articles
Just for your information, a discussion regarding the inclusion of written season summaries into league season articles has been started on the talk page of the respective MoS guide. Input on the matter is gladly welcome. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 12:04, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Naming convention of season articles for one country
I notice that cricket articles are named like 2006–07 Australian cricket season or 2007 English cricket season. So wouldn't it be more logical to have 2007–08 English football season instead of 2007–08 in English football? Where did the "in xxxxxish football" convention come from? --Jameboy (talk) 13:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I personally am opposed to the inclusion of the word season in the titles of these articles. The word implies purely competition related things, which of course should be the bulk of the article. However, there are things that have little to no impact on competitions, I'm thinking of the deaths section here, but were major events in the football world during that year. Sir Sputnik (talk) 16:31, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see the same problem, myself. If the article is titled 2007–08 English football season, then any information relevant to football in England during the 2007–08 season could be included, whether it be deaths or competition-specific info. – PeeJay 21:19, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

As a side question, is there any formal naming convention for a league season article, in particular, about the omission/inclusion of the word "season"? European and Asian league season articles don't have it contrary to American ones. Guidelines don't have anything on this subject :( —WiJG? 08:04, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If there are two separate championships played over the course of one season (for example, in Mexico with their Apertura/Clausura system, or in many other Latin-American countries) OR the season is decided by a knock-out tournament after the conclusion of the regular season (e.g. Major League Soccer, Australian A-League), the word "season" should be attached to the title. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 09:37, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks! —WiJG? 12:34, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Club season MOS, part 3 (I think)
Greetings all,

I know I have been beating this topic like a dead horse, but now that the majority of leagues are in the off-season and articles are being created for the upcoming one, I think this is a great opportunity to finalize a club season MOS for the project. I have created a proposed MOS in my sandbox from the various suggestions placed in a previous discussion. I would like everyone and anyone to take a look and comment so we can codify something within the very near future. Please use the talk page of my sandbox, and thanks in advance. Hooray team. Digirami (talk) 23:17, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Is Template:Football season start flawed and limited?
Well? I was looking into it and I see that there is a possibility that someone just puts a FIFA country codes and then you get a header for results in domestic League, Cup and League cup. But here is the thing. The majority of FIFA member countries doesnt even have its own League cup. Sure, the template is great for lists of German, English or French clubs, but what about Italian, Spanish or the majority of other European clubs out there?

Here is the problem. Lets take example of the country I am from (Slovenia). If I want to use this template then I have a problem. The template will show League and Cup, but it will also show League cup as well, despite the fact that Slovenia doesnt have a League cup. The only other domestic cup out there is the Supercup, which isnt on the template if I use it.

So basicly, I am asking if there is a possibility to use this template but somehow change the header. So for my example, that I could be able to change the League Cup into Supercup or simply to remove it from the head of the table. As it is now, I cant use the template and neither does the most coutnries out there since there is no point in having a League cup in the table and empty spaces bellow.

Also, the countries that have League, Cup and League cup competitions can use this table, but have a problem since there isnt a Supercup section in the table, which is a competition played in virtualy every European country.Ratipok (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * The simple solution would be for the countries that don't have a league cup, to use that column for the supercup. NapHit (talk) 12:05, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, said template is not used for any pages except a list of Watford F.C. seasons (see also here). I would thus advise you to check if there are other solutions available which may equally fit your needs since the template in question might be either deprecated or not being used for other reasons. --Soccer-holicI hear voices in my head... 15:45, 9 August 2011 (UTC)


 * @NapHit - Yes, but is it even possible to change the head of the template? Just to switch the words "League cup" and change it to "Supercup" in the header? But nevertheless, problem still exists then with countries that have League, Cup and League Cup AND Supercup since the table would be missing one of the domestic cups (in case of England, more then one).Nevermind, I see it has been dealt with (at least with my country).Ratipok (talk) 16:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I borrowed the cup and league cup code from Template:Football player statistics 2. To answer the question, it is flawed and it is limited, but the vision behind it is sound, and should be built on. For countries where there is only one domestic cup competition, I'm sure it would be possible to remove the second column entirely. —WFC— TFL notices 17:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I completely disagree about the future of this template. Why on earth does everyone have so much trouble with wikitables?! Use a table for god's sake and let's do away with redundant templates. – PeeJay 17:22, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to agree with that philosophy in general. But this one is a template for multi-level and potentially sortable header. The average editor struggles with those, and even with a parameter or two,  is simpler than the equivalent wikicode. —WFC— TFL notices 00:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Note
nominated List of FC Barcelona seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:42, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Note
nominated List of Liverpool F.C. seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:45, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Note
nominated List of Manchester City F.C. seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Strawberry on Vanilla (talk) 14:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

1986–87 1. FC Nuremberg season
I could use some help with 1986–87 1. FC Nuremberg season. Thanks. Kingjeff (talk) 03:08, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Deleted matches
What are your opinions on matches that were fully played (90 minutes of play) but due to a rule breach, one of the teams objected the match result (after playing) and was subsequently changed by the governing football body? How would these matches be displayed in a club season article or how would they affect the article? Would no record ever show? Would it be important to mention that said match occurred even though the standing match result never really happened and was only won in an office? A random example: Let's say Arlington United defeated Western FC 2-1. However, Arlington United committed a serious regulatory offense according to the season regulations and Western FC made a complaint against Arlington United and subsequently, the governing football body erased the 2-1 match result and awarded Western FC a 3-0 win over Arlington United. What would you write in the club season articles to show this? --MicroX (talk) 06:58, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would place the result as a 3-0 win and add Note with a reference under the section explaining why the result was a technical victory. In the Ukrainian First League and Ukrainian Second League there are a couple of these kind of results this season. i.e. Team did not show up, match was not played because club refused to pay its players. Brudder Andrusha (talk) 04:06, 27 January 2012 (UTC)


 * How would you address the club's season article though? Although the match took place and was deleted, the technical victory score shouldn't be put into the football collapsible template if it never occurred on the field. This is an example of what I've done so far.

Redone example
Good job with your example. However, the actual result is the technical victory so that should be recorded. I would remove the note so the font is larger and bit more readable, but there is nothing wrong with your method. Also with a reference in my example I have an example of the original result but I would also add the reference where the Peruvian Football Federation has made the official decision.

Notes:


 * Following the end of the match, Sporting Cristal disputed the match result after Universitario failed to submit records to the ADFP of their players' monthly salaries prior to the match. The ADFP and Peruvian Football Federation agreed with Cristal's complaint and the match result was nullified and declared a 3–0 win for Cristal. The original result was 2 – 1 victory for Universitario. (15 June, 2011) Brudder Andrusha (talk) 02:12, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Template for club season?
I think it would be a very good idea to have a standardised template for a club season per this one, which already exists for league seasons. This GA could be useful upon which to base the template, although other attributes or features could be useful. It can be noticed that other articles, which you would expect to be quite similar, are in fact quite different. Thoughts? Cloudz 679 08:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That Chelsea article seems to be in a bit of disarray. It doesn't seem to be able to decide whether to list results using the footballbox template or in tables, and it definitely shouldn't include a "Starting XI" list, since that is complete OR. – PeeJay 09:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should try and be too prescriptive. See mine (and others) comments above when this was last raised. Eldumpo (talk) 21:14, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

List of Margate F.C. seasons
Just a heads up to whoever reads this page...the above article is now littered with dead refs from margatefchistory.co.uk which appears to no longer exist.Narom (talk) 22:42, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

What level is acceptable?
Now i'm a bit of a follower of Southport F.C. and i'm a bit of a stat whore too. I've been contemplating doing a list of season for them but was put off because of their level in football but having seen List of Margate F.C. seasons i'm going to be opening up a new sandbox and start creating.

However, a bit pre-emptively, i'm also looking at the season by season lists. York City F.C. season 2009–10 clearly have them and are playing at the level Southport have spent the majority of their time in since 1993 and will be playing at again next season. Is Conference Prem the unofficial stop off, or is Conference North (or other leagues 1 step below conference national, past and present) acceptable? Regards Uksam88 (talk) 18:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * We had a bit of a discussion about this higher up the page. Short answer: Conference National is high enough, but sources and references, as always, are a must. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 18:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd say that a Southport season list would definitely be OK, seeing as they played in The Football League for over 50 years. At least, that was what I went off when creating List of Nelson F.C. seasons and they only played in the league for 10 seasons. Big  Dom  19:14, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Well that'll do for me. Given it a go over at List of Southport F.C. seasons, going to be doing it in blocks. Next job is to do the other comps and goal scorers for the seasons i've got listed then do the same for the next 30 years. I'll add further information to the opening as time goes by, should hopefully have all of it done over this bank holiday weekend. Oh and the sources at the moment are just rough ones taken from other websites for the time being, i've got to track down the ISBN number of the clubs stats book from the football league and when i have that'll be added pronto. Uksam88 (talk) 21:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd i've still not finished that page, oops.Narom (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

MOS: Sports season formats, player tenures and season spans
There is a discussion occurring at one of the Manual of Style talk pages concerning date formats for sports seasons and year spans here: Sports seasons: 1967–68, not 1967/68. For those of you football and other sports editors who thought this was a settled issue, you may want to chime in. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

1953–54 FA Cup Qualifying Rounds
Over the last few weeks I have begun to fill in the gaps in the FA Cup Qualifying Rounds from 1946-47 onwards and have been making steady progress to make sure that the results of the qualifying rounds are there as well as the results from the 1st Round Proper.

However the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953%E2%80%9354_FA_Cup_Qualifying_Rounds page is being considered for deletion on the grounds due to the following reasons: The article is a large list of football statistics for the qualifiers of a competition. Delete per WP:NOT as WP:RAWDATA. Odie5533 (talk) 20:48, 2 December 2012 (UTC) which would mean on this basis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012%E2%80%9313_FA_Cup_Qualifying_Rounds could end up being up being considered for deletion.

I am only asking for help on here because I do not want this or any other pages deleted because people do not understand the history of the FA Cup. Darrin01 (DARRIN01 (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)).
 * I agree it should be kept and have given my reasons on the deletion discussion. Should be no danger of this getting deleted. BigDom (talk) 13:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Lists of deaths
Regarding the lists of deaths in season articles (e.g. 2011–12 in English football), I'd like to make a couple of proposals regarding such lists:
 * With rare exception, I think we should wikilink only the name of the person concerned. Wikilinking all of their clubs creates a sea of blue that distracts from what is important, i.e. the name of the person that died. Onward linking to clubs they played for and trophies they won can be achieved by linking to the article of the individual concerned, which is made easier for the reader if we don't overlink.
 * Keep it brief. Include only one or two sentences about the individual and their achievements in the game. It should not be an obituary of full life story. We are focusing mainly on the fact that they have died and trying to briefly summarise their life. Most, if not all, of their achievements will have taken place in seasons prior to the season during which they died. Further information about their life and career belongs in their bio article.

Interested to hear what people think. Thanks. --Jameboy (talk) 18:01, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Tables in lead of Liverpool season articles
A number of Liverpool season articles (e.g. 2004–05 Liverpool F.C. season) have a table in the lead section that summarises the progress of the club and top scorer in each competition. It is pretty much redundant as all of the summarised information is contained in the adjacent infobox, with the exception of top scorer in cups and European competition. However, since the club's top scorer in those competitions will usually have scored only a few goals, this is not important information and can easily be summarised in prose. I can't see anything in WP:LEAD that specifically prohibits tables, but it is pretty clear to me that this is what the infobox is for. If there are no objections here, I will go ahead and delete them. --Jameboy (talk) 01:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Go for it. —WFC— FL wishlist 01:52, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree they are redundant to the infobox. NapHit (talk) 04:23, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, I've started removing them. --Jameboy (talk) 18:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Useless information in Minor leagues
I am relatively new here and I want to focus on minor leagues since major leagues are already well-covered. I have come across pages with "useless" information, e.g. on Saint Lucia Gold Division the 2011 clubs are listed, and on Barbados Premier Division, teams relegated in 2010--2012 are listed. This kind of information is usually outdated and is almost valueless. I would like to see others' opinions. If they are deemed valueless, I will proceed to delete them systematically and optimize the pages country by country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sofeshue (talk • contribs) 08:14, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Those are not needed. -Koppapa (talk) 20:38, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Deprecation of WP:SEASONS
WP:SEASONS redirects to this project. This shortcut is mainly used in old archives (22 links in all, including the project page itself).

WP:SEASON redirects to a section of the Manual of Style relating to how seasons of the year should be used on Wikipedia. This shortcut is more widely used across a wide range of talk pages (over 250 links in all).

In order to avoid confusion between them, and since WP:SEASONS is rarely used anyway, I propose that this shortcut be removed from the project page. I don't propose deleting the shortcut, so anyone who still knows it can use it and any old links will still work, but I think we would be better off not encouraging its further use. The original WP:FSATF shortcut or a more memorable shortcut such as WP:FBSEASON or WP:FOOTBALLSEASON would be better to avoid confusion and clearly identify the target. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 22:25, 18 February 2014 (UTC)


 * While I agree that the shortcut to here might cause confusion, I disagree with keeping the redirect but deleting its mention from WikiProject Football/Season article task force If the redirect exists, it should be mentioned on the target, else it will just cause more confusion. If you're going to "hide" it, delete the redirect as well. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:31, 21 February 2014 (UTC)


 * See WP:R and WP:R for reasons why deleting redirects is a bad idea. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 01:42, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If deleting the redirect isn't an option, then it should displayed on the target page. – PeeJay 02:08, 22 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Why should we deliberately include a shortcut that is potentially confusing? —sroc &#x1F4AC; 10:25, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * See WP:LINKBOXES:
 * "The point of these template boxes is not to list every single redirect for any given page (indeed, that's what Special:Whatlinkshere is for); instead, they generally should list only one or two common and easily remembered redirects."
 * —sroc &#x1F4AC; 10:38, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * As you point out, people may type in "WP:SEASONS" expecting to find themselves at the WikiProject for the seasons of the year; having the redirect displayed on the page would go some way to alleviating the confusion. – PeeJay 12:58, 23 February 2014 (UTC)
 * This is already dealt with by the hatnote:
 * I'm not proposing to delete the hatnote. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 14:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm not proposing to delete the hatnote. —sroc &#x1F4AC; 14:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Squad, Statistics, Transfers, and Loans sections
I have posted a discussion covering the Squad, Statistics, Transfers, and Loans sections on club seasonal pages over at WT:FOOTY. I would appreciate if you could provide your comments on the subject, and also contact other editors who you feel would have useful input. Kanoch (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

List of St Johnstone F.C. seasons
Have submitted this to Peer Review ahead of trying for FL. Any feedback welcome. Thanks. Boca Jóvenes (talk) 20:20, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Notice to participants at this page about adminship
Many participants here create a lot of content, have to evaluate whether or not a subject is notable, decide if content complies with BLP policy, and much more. Well, these are just some of the skills considered at Requests for adminship.

So, please consider taking a look at and watchlisting this page:


 * Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

You could be very helpful in evaluating potential candidates, and even finding out if you would be a suitable RfA candidate.

Many thanks and best wishes,

Anna Frodesiak (talk) 17:39, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

2009–10 FC Unirea Urziceni season
Any chance on improving or removing this very incomplete article: 2009–10 FC Unirea Urziceni season. It is already in need of an update since 2010... The Banner talk 19:30, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I guess that's down to you. I have no interest in improving that article myself, and I doubt it would get deleted since it's a perfectly valid topic, so if you think it needs improvement, maybe you should do it yourself. – PeeJay 22:23, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I know absolutely nothing about Romanian football. The reason why I came there was a link to a disambiguation page, templated in 2012. Improvement of this article seemed a good idea to me. But seeing your harsh and unwilling reply, it is clearly a stupid idea to ask for help at a place where people are supposed to have more knowledge of the subject than I have. The Banner talk 11:49, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Perhaps send a message to the person who created the article. Unfortunately, there are a lot of articles on here that get started but never get finished, and too few members with too many responsibilities of their own to devote the necessary time to making those articles better. – PeeJay 19:31, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So, you say that I have a license to chop up that article to bring it up to scratch? The Banner talk 20:35, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course. Anyone has the right to edit any Wikipedia article as they see fit, provided they're improving the encyclopaedia as a whole. Good luck! – PeeJay 10:25, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

A template for transfers
I'd really appreciate any input on a proposed standard going forward for how transfers are listed on club season articles. There is a discussion ongoing here at the moment. Given the implications for this page, I thought it would be best to give a heads up. Domeditrix (talk) 11:39, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Need help on Man Utd current season
Hi guys, I'm struggling to get things fixed on 2018–19 Manchester United F.C. season. The table for Results by matchweek is below the Squad details heading rather than above it. I've tried all I can think of to get it in the right place but can't suss it. I figure the quicker this is fixed the better as it's one of the more high-traffic pages. Coventryy (talk) 20:11, 19 August 2018 (UTC)
 * No need to worry about that, I've reverted back to the style that existed before your changes. – PeeJay 21:19, 19 August 2018 (UTC)